Representation and Slavery
Does your government represents you and your values? If yes, do you think at least 90% of what it does represents your values? Do you approve of 90% of the military spending and military actions? Do you approve of 90% of the health-related spending and regulation? Do you approve of 90% of the taxes imposed and actions required for compliance? Do you approve of 90% the welfare programs?
I don’t think anyone could honestly claim they approve of 90% of what their government does, and yet, shouldn’t that be the test of representation? If no-one can claim they approve of 90% of what their government does, how can the government claim to represent anyone?
How much does a government represent its people? I suggest we start using this test:
A government is X-percent-representative if every activity it does is approved by at least X% of the population.
Partial Slavery
I suspect little of what governments do has 90% approval. I suspect few things even reach 80% and many are 60% or less. Is this acceptable?
When only 60% of the population approve of an activity which is applied to 100% of the population, then the other 40% are being forced to participate in something against their will. Is it acceptable for 60% of the population to force their views on the other 40%? This problem is usually referred as the “tyranny of the majority.” It is in direct opposition of freedom:
[freedom is] “not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another” — Second Treatise of Civil Government, John Locke, 1690
Tyranny of the majority is a form of slavery, but it is different from 100% slavery. The 60% do not have absolute control over everything the other 40% does. However, the majority do impose their absolute control over part of the lives of the other 40%.
One may feel comfortable with tyranny of the majority when one is in the majority, but this is a false comfort. No one is in the majority on everything. Everyone is subject to the rule of others, against their will, on some issue.
We have tolerated this state of partial-slavery for a long time. “Surely some representation is better than no representation?” Much the same thing was said to full-slaves: Surely it is better to live as a slave than to not live at all? There are many parallels between the justifications given for full-slavery and the justifications for accepting the current state of representation in our government:
It is good for the people. It would be too difficult to abolish. It is essential to certain industries. It is acceptable in this culture. It is legal. Abolishing it would threaten the structure of society. (bbc)
Just because we could be worse-off doesn’t mean our current state is acceptable. It is no more acceptable to have the arbitrary will of the majority enforced against the minority than it is for one person to have arbitrary authority over another.
How much Representation is Enough?
If you agree with my basic argument, you may ask where we draw the line. Is it OK for 90% of the people to impose their will on 10%? If that isn’t good enough, is 99% over 1% good enough? I don’t have a good answer. Less than 90% seems unacceptable to me.
I think we should strive for at least a 90%-representative government. What would such a government look like? Is it even possible?
To be continued…
